https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88198
Bug ID: 88198
Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in process_init_constructor_array,
at cp/typeck2.c:1311
Product: gcc
Version: 7.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86988
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
On the GCC 7 branch I instead see
vla19.C:11:40: internal compiler error: in process_init_constructor_array, at
cp/typeck2.c:1311
char b[1][a.r] = { { "12345678901" } };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88198
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86988
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
> However, in-pack.f90 is the only one that is made to fail by the combination
> of -Ofast and -march=skylake-avx512. I think it's the same problem as PR
> 86735
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88170
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #19 from Mark Wielaard ---
I think we are just talking past each other because we don't fully agree when
the warning should trigger and whether it is (trivial and/or) desirable to
avoid that specific corner case.
We do agree that nes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88189
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #20 from Mark Wielaard ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02055.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88174
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88178
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88178
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88179
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, ra
Targe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88183
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88185
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88188
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88196
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
Version|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88153
Daniel Fruzynski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88188
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45090
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45090&action=edit
gcc9-pr88188.patch
Untested fix (ignoring powerpcspe, because it really should be removed as
unmaintained).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88187
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40073
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
The pattern recognizer could apply some of these tricks. I'd rather not have
GIMPLE narrow the operations and putting in MIN/MAX ops to make the code not
undefined...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88185
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Yes, this should be fixed on mainline (would be great to double-check that
systemd builds with it). I guess we could backport this to gcc 8?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88185
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88185
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Yes, this should be fixed on mainline (would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68834
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88187
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With
--- gcc/cp/decl.c.jj2018-11-17 00:16:41.0 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/decl.c 2018-11-26 11:18:30.518620651 +0100
@@ -11276,7 +11276,7 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56682
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
I really believe there's no need for any extra options on top of
-sanitize={address,thread} right now.
The only recommendation would be about the -g option in order to have nice
backtraces and variable locati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86905
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88187
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45091&action=edit
gcc9-pr88187.patch
Full patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88184
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88195
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88151
--- Comment #1 from Antony Polukhin ---
The implementation is quite trivial:
https://gist.github.com/zmij/329005f5d06369243988ef6301f37616
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87947
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That answer is about whether it's "safe", and explains that the -std options do
not create ABI incompatibilities. The question is also stated as (emphasis in
the original):
> For simplicity, let's assume a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88073
--- Comment #7 from mecej4 ---
I appreciate the speedy response!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88151
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm not convinced it's useful though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88183
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88180
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88198
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88196
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88185
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88193
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88178
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
void foo (void)
{
register int r19 asm ("19");
}
ICEs with -g too.
Similar effects with "16", "argp" or "frame".
Guess it would be nice to reject these regs somewhere early, but there doesn't
seem to be a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86076
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86076
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 11:59:05 2018
New Revision: 266458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86139
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 11:59:05 2018
New Revision: 266458
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266458&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86139
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2018-11-26
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
Bug ID: 88199
Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] memory leak on unordered container
move assignment
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> How could ICE start with a library change?
It was dependent to how Tuple class was defined. However doing a pre-processed
source file I see it starting from r2232
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88189
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87988
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 45092
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45092&action=edit
better patch
This is a less hacky approach mimicking TREE_DIEs. It elides BLOCK
BLOCK_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN if that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86831
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86735
--- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu ---
*** Bug 86831 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
It is possible that the verifier is just overzelaous here, but it seems it
really does not make sense to have packed variant of nonpacked structure and
vice versa because the memory layout is different. So i wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87988
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
>
> Honza - can you test the effect of this patch please?
Thanks! I am just redoing the tests (rebuilding firefoxes with updated
tree), so i will do that today or tomorrow.
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4)
> It is possible that the verifier is just overzelaous here, but it seems it
> really does not make sense to have packed variant of nonpacked structure and
> vice ve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose ---
that fixes the build, taken from the sparc64 file.
--- gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-linux__alpha.ads (revision 266457)
+++ gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-linux__alpha.ads (working copy)
@@ -87,6 +87,7 @@
SIGKILL: constan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
The C++ FE does
if (flag_pack_struct)
{
tree v;
TYPE_PACKED (t) = 1;
/* Even though the type is being defined for the first time
here, there might have been a forward declar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |8.2.1
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
Arnaud Charlet changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||charlet at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87610
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87610
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 13:31:21 2018
New Revision: 266460
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266460&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87665
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 13:31:21 2018
New Revision: 266460
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266460&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose ---
Author: doko
Date: Mon Nov 26 13:30:50 2018
New Revision: 266459
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266459&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Matthias Klose
PR ada/88191
* libgnarl/s-lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87745
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 13:31:21 2018
New Revision: 266460
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266460&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88200
Bug ID: 88200
Summary: [9 Regression] ada bootstrap failure on
alpha-linux-gnu (aised STORAGE_ERROR : stack overflow
or erroneous memory access)
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88191
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Grant ---
I wonder if the "POD" location of the struct is also still recorded? In which
case could just output that.. rather than the implicitly defined
copy-constructor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88195
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87645
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:16:01 2018
New Revision: 266461
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266461&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-19 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/87645
Backp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87645
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86952
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I've updated slightly the micro-benchmark and I see following difference:
https://github.com/marxin/microbenchmark/tree/retpoline-table
on my Haswell desktop:
./test
no jump table: 4265908653
jump table
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40196
Manfred Schwarb changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manfred99 at gmx dot ch
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87937
--- Comment #5 from Tomáš Trnka ---
Could you please kindly suggest what do I need to do to get this out of
WAITING? I will gladly assist with any debugging and testing, but I'm not well
versed enough with GCC internals to fix the underlying issu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88181
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45094
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45094&action=edit
gcc9-pr88181.patch
This untested patch fixed the ICE for me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87937
--- Comment #6 from Tomáš Trnka ---
The above is from GNU Fortran (GCC) 8.2.1 20181126
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88201
Bug ID: 88201
Summary: lambda function fails to compile, when deactivated by
a constexpr and deduced return type
Product: gcc
Version: 8.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #8)
> Do you agree this warning output should be changed to clarify?
Yes, there's plenty of room to improve it.
> I understand your reply about it being non-POD when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45077|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88202
Bug ID: 88202
Summary: FAIL: runtime/pprof
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
Assignee: ian at a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88184
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88182
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Nov 26 15:37:35 2018
New Revision: 266467
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266467&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-26 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88182
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88182
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87075
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 26 15:53:43 2018
New Revision: 266468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/87075 - ICE with constexpr array initialization.
My patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84281
--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Mon Nov 26 15:53:48 2018
New Revision: 266469
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266469&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/84281
2018-02-12 Richard Biener
* constexpr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88203
Bug ID: 88203
Summary: assert does not compile with OpenMP's pragma omp
parallel for default(none)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87947
--- Comment #5 from comm+gnu at squotd dot net ---
OK, thanks. I appreciate the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88203
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openmp
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88204
Bug ID: 88204
Summary: New test case
26_numerics/complex/operators/more_constexpr.cc from
r266416 fails
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86900
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45097
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45097&action=edit
gcc9-pr86900.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #12 from G.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88205
Bug ID: 88205
Summary: ICE in gfc_wide_strncasecmp, at fortran/scanner.c:249
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70817
G. Steinmetz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #2 from G.
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
